Awareness vs. Self-Awareness. Totally Different?!?!

[NoVA101]

I have come across a concept that Steve Pavlina and PracticalAdvaita *almost* understand in the same way, but with a CRITICAL difference.

The idea is Awareness vs. Self-Awareness.

Both agree that you are Awareness or Consciousness or The Perceiver. I believe these all mean the same thing.

But on StevePavlina.com he says:

"My true identity is that I’m aware, and I’m aware of my awareness right now, which means I’m self-aware."

On practicaladvaita.blogspot.com he says:

"What you perceive you can not be, since the perceived can not be the perceiver."

Oh hey!

It seems both are almost agreeing, but with one massive, critical, universe-altering distinction!

When I read the article on StevePavlina.com, it sure made sense. It seemed intuitively-obvious that I am self-aware.

But then the article on practicaladvaita.blogspot.com delves deeply into the idea that you are actually not aware of your awareness. I think that when you are aware of your awareness, you are what is known as "enlightened" -- something that can only be experienced, not understood.

I would *love* your thoughts on this!!

These are both great articles, except for that one massive difference!

http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/200...-or-awareness/

A practical approach to Advaita: The Direct Path

[Terumoto]

You can call a chair a chair. You can call a chair 椅子.

In reality, it's still the same thing.

[torilink]

well, you begin by stating that the perceiver and consciousness and awareness are all the same thing.

there is no conflict, yet there is....

consciousness is all things - it is the perceiver, that which is being perceived and that which is creating that which is being perceived. Awareness is the underlying state of being, and the perceiver is the egoic mind/physical body with which consciousness perceives itself in various states of being.

The perceiver, or egoic mind which uses the physical body to perceive creation is like the lens of consciousness, the mirror if you will - it is not consciousness per se, but a manifestation in itself, or a tool used to for consciousness to observe itself. but, as a creation it is still consciousness.

when the egoic mind diminishes and becomes aware of the higher self (consciousness) and then we can say we are self aware.

[absvan]

Originally Posted by NoVA101

I think that when you are aware of your awareness, you are what is known as "enlightened" -- something that can only be experienced, not understood.

Why do Steve and the blog on Advaita have different opinions? Because "I" is something that can only be experienced. All the great teachers of Advaita says that they dont have words to define/express the supreme/Consciousness and that it can only be felt. Whenever a question was asked to Nisargdatta about defining "I", he would never have a definition that would explain "I".

I have been in the same place as where you are. What I am suggesting is what you have mentioned in your last line - "something that can only be experienced, not understood". Asking your mind/others to understand what is formless will only give you more answers and probably more confusion.

[NoVA101]

Originally Posted by absvan

I have been in the same place as where you are. What I am suggesting is what you have mentioned in your last line - "something that can only be experienced, not understood". Asking your mind/others to understand what is formless will only give you more answers and probably more confusion.

You're not in the same place any more?

Have you had "The Experience" -- whatever that is?

How does one go about getting "The Experience", or whatever? There are zillions of methods/rituals/religions/beliefs/practices/techniques/traditions *SOME* of which *MIGHT* lead you to this experience, some might lead you to other amazing experiences but not "this" one (so you think you 'got it' but you didn't), some won't work for you at all, some are total crap or misunderstandings or just scams. Some take years, some can happen instantaneously.

My minimal understanding at this point is that there are two ways to have this experience:

1. Traditional meditation practices -- when directed in a specific way -- towards this goal. This is what Buddhists are always seeking -- perhaps others as well. The process is very long (many years) and difficult and complicated and there are MANY MANY variations. The best explanation I have found by far is this one:
How Meditation Works This is a really great article.
But of course all you get from reading about it is onto a path that might work. You still have years of practice, path, journey, good chance you have to make trips to India, meet a guru or swami, and on and on for years and years.

2. "Neo-Advaita" "Pointing-Out Instructions" -- I believe these are supposed to be things you can read which will do something like shut down your critical mind, or your mind all together, and YOU (the real YOU) will have the experience, or come to light, or break through or whatever, and you (small you, ego) will be forever destroyed by this experience -- you are "enlightened" because you now realize YOU. You can google Pointing Out Instructions. Or you can read the books written by guys like Tony Parsons, Sailor Bob Adamson and many others.

So have you had The Experience? If so, what did you do?

If not, do you want to? What are you doing in an attempt to have it??

Here is a woman who had the experience. Sure sounds cool!
Stacey Lawson: Who Are You, Really? - Living Now on The Huffington Post

[torilink]

the truth of it all, and purpose of "Enlightenment" is for the egoic mind to become aware of the presence of the higher self - and this is an experience, not something we can learn, but we can know it from the experience or revelation.

obviously consciousness is always aware of itself, it is only through the egoic mind it can "Forget" & enter into duality. The ego cannot be destroyed by enlightenment, yet it can willingly diminish and submit to the higher self - but only once it becomes aware that everything it thought was a delusion, everything it believed a falsehood, and everything it manifested is an illusion.

[NoVA101]

Originally Posted by torilink

the truth of it all, and purpose of "Enlightenment" is for the egoic mind to become aware of the presence of the higher self - and this is an experience, not something we can learn, but we can know it from the experience or revelation.

How do you know? Have you had this experience yourself? If so, how?

[torilink]

yes, I posted about it last Spring on a thread here at SP forum - I'll hunt for the thread and post a link when I find it.

for me it wasn't one huge revelation, there was the big initial fissure of my ego when the illusory world kind of cracked open and I had this experience, and became aware of what "I" am in truth, then over the years that have followed I've had others of varying intensity & nature.

[NoVA101]

Originally Posted by torilink

yes, I posted about it last Spring on a thread here at SP forum - I'll hunt for the thread and post a link when I find it.

for me it wasn't one huge revelation, there was the big initial fissure of my ego when the illusory world kind of cracked open and I had this experience, and became aware of what "I" am in truth, then over the years that have followed I've had others of varying intensity & nature.

Any luck finding that post??

[NoVA101]

Just wondering if anyone had any insight on the original question. Here is a simplified version:

Steve: Awareness CAN be aware of itself.

Advaita: Awareness can NOT be aware of itself.

Does anyone know if Awareness CAN or CAN NOT be aware of itself??

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by NoVA101

Just wondering if anyone had any insight on the original question. Here is a simplified version:

Steve: Awareness CAN be aware of itself.

Advaita: Awareness can NOT be aware of itself.

Does anyone know if Awareness CAN or CAN NOT be aware of itself??

Is this more of a question of wheather one can experience oneness? If oneness is being one with everything, then how is it possible to experience that since all sense of objective reality is gone in oneness. There is no seperate self to view the oneness since you are being one with everything. however, then some say it's possible to experience oneness. And the idea is something that makes both oneness and individuality exist at the same time. Christians say this too. That they are whole or holy with spirit (oneness) and also an individual. I like to think oneness is experienced through your self.

from http://www.mimbres.com/holp/holpath/kramer/oneness.htm:

The actual experience of underlying unity is different from thought creating an abstract concept of it, and then making that concept more real than individuated existence. What should not be forgotten is that it takes an individual to experience unity. Oneness is an abstraction that presents itself as beyond dualism, but has within it a hidden duality. Dividing the cosmos into two categories or levels of reality is dualistic by nature. The ideology of Oneness (as opposed to the experience of it) creates an opposition with multiplicity, calling itself "higher" and more real. And although the mystical experience can give a person a deeper connection with the cosmos, by contrast the ideology of Oneness with its camouflaged, hierarchical dualism has separated the spiritual from the worldly and humanity from nature.

[NoVA101]

Originally Posted by NoVA101

Just wondering if anyone had any insight on the original question. Here is a simplified version:

Steve: Awareness CAN be aware of itself.

Advaita: Awareness can NOT be aware of itself.

Does anyone know if Awareness CAN or CAN NOT be aware of itself??

Ya, I really think Steve has it wrong.

The other variations on this are an Eye cannot see itself. Or a Knife cannot cut itself. If you believe you ARE awareness, then you can NOT be aware of yourself -- which is what Steve incorrectly says.

Here is the answer I got from the guy who runs the Practical Advaita blog...


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Practical Advaita
> Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2007 10:51 AM
> Subject: Re: Awareness vs. Self-Awareness. Totally Different?!?!
>
> If two people are fighting, and a third is a witness to the fight, the
> witness doesn't experience, the ones that are fighting are the ones
> experiencing.
>
> Let's say you are angry and know that you are angry. Could that be
> called Self-awareness? No, because anger is in the mind and your
> perception of the anger makes you distinct and separate from that
> thought, and by extension, the mind. The Self, that is Brahman, is
> outside of anything imaginable, certainly beyond the grasp of the
> mind, the three states of waking, dreaming and sleeping, beyond all
> words and forms. To be Self-aware, is to be, and yet only be described
> in negatives as far as words are concerned.
>
> If we quote examples from our daily lives as examples of being
> self-aware, then it is the false self that sometimes takes itself to
> be the body, sometimes the mind, always changing. That is why, in the
> process of self inquiry, one keeps discarding everything that is an
> experience, that comes and goes, since that can't be the real,
> unchanging, truth.
>
> This might be some heavy reading, but truly worth it ..
> http://www.sriramanamaharshi.org/dow...ha_deepika.zip
>
> Lastly, realize that all these debates are only happening in the mind.
> Therefore, as Ramana Maharshi and others have repeatedly said, give up
> all questions except Who Am I. Always question your experiences, "to
> whom does this appear?" If the logical answer is 'To me', then
> disregard that experience as false, since you haven't found that I or
> the Self. The mind can only do so much, just keep your attention on
> 'Who am I'.
>
> warm regards,
>

[Erock]

I think by "self-aware" Steve just meant that he is aware of his fake self (ego, mind, body, ex.). He even says his true identity is that he is "aware," which I would interpret as him saying his true self is the awareness.

I agree with you that the perceived cannot be the perceiver, and anything that we are aware of is not us. We are aware of the world, our bodies, our thoughts, ex, therefore none of this is the real self. The real self cannot know itself, because the act of knowing something means that it is unreal.

Tricky stuff, but fun to talk about
Erock

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by Erock

I think by "self-aware" Steve just meant that he is aware of his fake self (ego, mind, body, ex.). He even says his true identity is that he is "aware," which I would interpret as him saying his true self is the awareness.

I agree with you that the perceived cannot be the perceiver, and anything that we are aware of is not us. We are aware of the world, our bodies, our thoughts, ex, therefore none of this is the real self. The real self cannot know itself, because the act of knowing something means that it is unreal.

Tricky stuff, but fun to talk about
Erock

I have trouble with the "true self" being awareness alone. I don't think there is awareness be itself. Pure awareness would not be able to experience anything on it's own - it's exsits in relationship to of which we can be aware. I know a lot of writings say that there is a true self that is the watcher or something like that. This puts the image in us that makes us think there is something seperate from everything else. That is our mind catagorizing everything and taking the whole apart and defining things still. It makes more sense to realize that awareness and that which we are aware of are mutually arising. That which is seen by the seer happen at the same time and never alone - so they are a whole - not seperate parts that has an object and an experiencer that is aware of that. If you try to find the seer alone, can you really find it?

[NoVA101]

Originally Posted by NoVA101

But on StevePavlina.com he says:

"My true identity is that I’m aware, and I’m aware of my awareness right now, which means I’m self-aware."

Here is BY FAR the best and shortest explanation of Advaita -- that you are pure Awareness (and that you are NOT aware of your awareness). And it tells you how to go about discovering that...

Even that feeling of "me" is something of which you were aware. Well, then, according to Advaita , it can't be the real you. The real you is the part that is aware, not anything that you're aware of.

Realization.org: Advaita Vedanta

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by NoVA101

Here is BY FAR the best and shortest explanation of Advaita -- that you are pure Awareness (and that you are NOT aware of your awareness). And it tells you how to go about discovering that...

Even that feeling of "me" is something of which you were aware. Well, then, according to Advaita , it can't be the real you. The real you is the part that is aware, not anything that you're aware of.

Realization.org: Advaita Vedanta

I know you are quoting some deep thinkers but what would it be like to be the real you that is just the part that is aware? I don't think we can be just that part because there would be nothing to be aware of. Awareness only exists at the same time as being aware of something. Otherwise we are decomposing the whole which is what all this spiritual path is not suppose to do - following a spiritual path should be integrating what ever we are into the whole which is awareness with the subject of the awareness. To be just aware is not possible, one must be aware os somthing - but that something is also part of the whole you.

[lovingawareness]

It depends what you're going for. Steve is not enlightened - sorry Steve! He definitely writes things of value, and quite frankly most people aren't that interested in enlightenment.

Now, if you're asking if the observer can become the observed, of course that's possible. It's the basis for the entire teachings of the spiritual teacher J.K. Krishnamurthi. You can google him or see him on wikipedia.

I tend to write from non-duality as well, which is the more western word for Advaita Vedanta. So do many western teachers, such as Eckhart Tolle. It's really about what works. Unfortunately the pervasive Sanskrit in more Hindu teachings doesn't reach everyone. :-)

My site: Loving Awareness, A Journey to Wholeness

[estrella]

David Hawkins says:
"that which is witnessing and that which is witnessed take on the same identity; the observer dissolves into the landscape and becomes equally the observed."
(he goes on: "everything is connected to everything else by a Presence whose power is infinite...")

[Terumoto]

He went a bit off track with that "presence whose power is infinite" part. I suppose it could be called that, but it doesn't describe it very well and is kind of misleading.

[estrella]

Originally Posted by Terumoto

He went a bit off track with that "presence whose power is infinite" part. I suppose it could be called that, but it doesn't describe it very well and is kind of misleading.

words may always be misleading: which words would *you* use?
- this is off-thread-topic perhaps now..

[Terumoto]

Originally Posted by estrella

words may always be misleading: which words would *you* use?
- this is off-thread-topic perhaps now..

It would probably be something like "_____ __ __________."

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by estrella

David Hawkins says:
"that which is witnessing and that which is witnessed take on the same identity; the observer dissolves into the landscape and becomes equally the observed."
(he goes on: "everything is connected to everything else by a Presence whose power is infinite...")

Yes, I keep writing something like this in this forum. There is not a seperate self that is aware. To think there is a witnesser that is able to be all by itself is a exercise in defining and seperating exeperience. There is never a witnesser by itself, the witnesser is always there with what is being witnessed. It is our language that pretends there are two seperate things there.

[medaille]

This doesn't really answer any questions but its interesting to perceive from things from various vantage points.

Here is what Wikipedia says about Martin Buber's I and Thou.

Buber uses two pairs of words to describe two fundamentally different types of relationship: "I-Thou" and "I-It."

For "I-It" relationships, the "It" refers to entities as discrete objects drawn from a defined set (e.g. he, she or any other objective entity defined by what makes it measurably different from other living entities). It can be said that "I" have as many distinct and different relationships with each "It" as there are "Its" in my life.

By contrast, the "I" in the "I-Thou" is a separate concept. This is the "I" that does not objectify any "It" but rather acknowledges a living relationship instead. The "I" in "I-Thou" is radically different than the "I" in "I-It." "I-Thou" relationships are sustained in the spirit and mind of an "I" for however long the feeling or idea of relationship is the dominant mode of perception. A person sitting next to a complete stranger on a park bench may enter into an "I-Thou" relationship with the stranger merely by beginning to think positively about people in general. The stranger is a person as well, and gets instantaneously drawn into a mental or spiritual relationship with the person whose positive thoughts necessarily include the stranger as a member of the set of persons about whom positive thoughts are directed. It is not necessary for the stranger to have any idea that he is being drawn into an "I-Thou" relationship for such a relationship to arise.

Despite the separation of "I" from the "Its" and "Thous" in this very sentence describing the relationship, Buber's two notions of "I" require attachment to a word partner. Despite our splitting of these individual terms for the purposes of analysis, there is to Buber's mind either an "I-Thou" or an "I-It" relationship. Every sentence man uses with I, refers to the two pairs: I-Thou and I-It. This instance is also interchangeable with Thou and It which would refer to I. It is bounded by others and It can only exist through this attachment because for every object there is another object. Thou on the other hand, has no limitations. When Thou is spoken, the speaker has no thing or has nothing which means that Thou is abstract. The speaker yet “takes his stand in relation”.

If "Thou" is used in the context of an encounter with a human being, the human being is not He, She, or bound by anything. You do not experience the human being; rather you can only relate to him or her in the sacredness of the I-Thou relation. The I-Thou relationship cannot be explained; it simply is. Nothing can intervene in the I-Thou relationship. I-Thou is not a means to some object or goal, but a definitive relationship involving the whole being of each subject. The inevitable fate of Thou is to become an It.

Love is a subject-to-subject relationship. Like the I-Thou relation, love is not a relation of subject to object, but rather a relation in which both members in the relationship are subjects and share the unity of being. The ultimate Thou is God. In the I-Thou relation there are no barriers, and this means that man can relate directly to God. God is ever-present in human consciousness, and manifests himself in music, literature, and other forms of culture. As previously mentioned, Thou is inevitably addressed as It. Because of this, the I-Thou relation becomes the being of the I-Thou relation. God is now spoken to directly not spoken about.

[TheFlyingMan]

Agreed with loving awareness - and check out his site too! But Steve is probably not writing from a spiritual / non-dualistic perspective. So therein lies the conflict. It's the old cliche, apples and oranges, etc etc.

Check out kentonwhitman.com Zen-Inspired Self Development or Takuin Minamoto for some non duality from people who know what they're talking about.

[Billy]

Originally Posted by NoVA101

But then the article on practicaladvaita.blogspot.com delves deeply into the idea that you are actually not aware of your awareness. I think that when you are aware of your awareness, you are what is known as "enlightened" -- something that can only be experienced, not understood.

: The Direct Path[/url]

Being aware of your awareness is not strictly enlightenment. I hear that word bandied about on a lot of these forums but i'm not sure if anyone knows what it trully is, ie Enlightenment. Enlightenment is the pinnacle of spiritual awareness where one drops all attachements to earthly and personal dealings and is a state of non suffering simply because they have no longings or jealousies in the physical realm to become attached to and therefore do not suffer as we do becuase they have realised that all suffering comes from our attachements to physical and psychological hooks. An enlightened person on observing this forum would probablynot even bother to reply to any threads or postings because they do not have the ego bound inclination to prove anything to anybody in particular. The modern chic form of enlightenment should come with a menu option,and I think I'll have some fries with mine thank you.

[robertanthony]

Hi Nova

Check this out.

Map/territory relation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia